A Word and a Quote: Diapason; Anger

Diapason (Dyuh-PAY-zon) - noun
-A full, rich outpouring of sound.

I like this word. It is fun to say, and makes me think of the chills you would get in an old cathedral when the choir and accompaniment bring your favorite song home. There are some potential metaphors there that could transform an entire paragraph.

The original Latin/Greek means "through all the notes". Technically, the original meaning came from Pythagoras' work applied to music, and the "dia" comes from tuning Pythagorean intervals using an interval of 2:1 to get diapason, and then breaking it down from there to fifths, etc. So the diapason would be like hitting every string on a tuned guitar.


______________________________________________________

“Anger is like gasoline. If you spray it around and somebody lights a match, you've got an inferno. [But] if we can put our anger inside an engine, it can drive us forward.”
–Scilla Elworthy

This quote is great for me because I tend to react with anger first, and find myself frustrated more than the people around me (which tends to make me even more frustrated and angry.) My anger isn't very dangerous because I have it under control, but it is my natural state. I keep an eye on it because I know it could easily get out of control and then would be hard to reign in.

However, I also see controlled anger as beneficial. Emotional investment in a problem or idea tends to help us manufacture the energy, creativity, and endurance required to solve a problem or accomplish a great achievement. My frustration in the Marine Corps at obstacles or at periods of high stress could have turned into dejected surrender but instead I used it to push through and conquer the impossible. While working for my undergrad and my MBA, I was often driven by anger at leaders who I felt were ignorant and should be working for me. I knew I could never get to their level without solid credentials that begin with a degree.

My kids make me angry, and that is where the fine tuning is crucial. If I didn't feel the anger, then I may not care enough to keep coaching them on being better people. Of course, with kids almost any amount of anger expressed can be devastating. So I have to keep coaching them and never give up, but I can't relate to them in the same way that my drill instructors related to me. At least not yet... :)

There is a bumper sticker that says "If you aren't angry, you aren't paying attention." It has been applied politically to both the left and right wings, as if their perspective should be obvious to everyone. This quote reminds me that they're both right, but add the caution that could prevent either side from diving off the deep end. Anger can empower us, and sometimes people choose not to be angry out of laziness or fear. Anger can get out of hand, cloud our judgement, and lead good people to make bad decisions.

You can layer your emotions and motivations by focusing more on some and less on others. Emotions like anger are hard to ignore and need to be factored in even if they seem undesirable, but you can limit their affect on your thinking and actions by focusing more on another emotion. For example, when my kids do something that they know is wrong, my immediate reaction is anger. But at all times, I feel love, pride, nostalgia, and other emotions. I let those positive actions be the filter and funnel that my anger has to pass through.

The end result is a spike in blood pressure, a stern look, a mental desire to impart a lesson, and carefully measured words that express disappointment, a clear expectation, and a loving reminder that I know they will one day may better decisions. I have good kids who commit very minor offenses (annoying the sibling, leaving messes, and playing games when they're supposed to be folding laundry) and voluntarily hug me when I least expect it, so it seems to be a system that works.

As we approach November 7th in a election year, I find politics to be on my mind continuously. But this year, I am more concerned with how to bring the two sides closer together rather than the validity of my own convictions. I think that what makes the Tea Party so nutty is the fact that they long ago let anger cloud their judgement, and that makes rational conversations difficult. However, their anger also inspired like-minded individuals and enables them to keep fighting for their convictions with vigor and tenacity. I think the only solution is to tap into the anger of the middle, but we need to find a stronger and more attractive emotion than anger which will sway the less nutty members of the right and will contain an engine within which to contain that anger and turn it into fuel (and keep it away from the steering wheel.) I know there are enough people who love this country and are angry at both the domestic and foreign extremists who threaten this country. If we can find that right mix of emotional appeal, it would allow me to use the diapason metaphor I am searching for in this sentence.

A Brave, New World

I just got an email from the President of the United States. The most powerful man on the planet sent me an email to announce a new initiative, broaden my understanding, and encourage my commitment. It's not the first time he has contacted me. We're connected on LinkedIn, he emailed me throughout the campaign, and continues to send occasional emails about what he is doing. His wife and his staff have sent a few emails too. He even sent me a text message to reveal his choice of running mate, prior to making a public announcement.

I try not to get a big head about it. I mean, I know I am not the only American who receives emails from the President, and we still have not met face-to-face. But he does solicit my feedback. I think he is truly interested in my opinion, approval, and support.

Yeah, Obama has no idea who I am, I know. In fact, it would make me nervous if he did know who I was. What I am excited about is the fact that the President of the United States has embraced social media. He has provided an avenue for dialogue that is unprecedented. Government will never be the same, and neither will the governed.

Love him or not, Obama is giving you access. You can still link to him on Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn. He still carries a Blackberry. Obama is leveraging the cutting edge of the internet, and finding new uses everyday.

Love him or hate him, you should pay attention to Obama's use of social media. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. What will be our reaction over time as Obama's administration finds new ways to communicate with us? This is even more important for the candidates in the future, for every office.

The president elected in 2012 may find that their real cost is in time spent online, rather than in dollars spent on TV and Radio commercials. In fact, the future candidates may need to demonstrate more savvy in social media than they do in fundraising. Campaign costs that cost less may dampen the voice of the interest groups who pay the most. A whole new paradigm of power may emerge.

The email I received today is for Recovery.gov which is a website dedicated to providing transparency and accountability with the money that congress approved for economic recovery. The intent is that any citizen may go to this website and be assured that our money is being invested in our future. Part of economic recovery is our own psychological perception. With Recovery.gov, we may have a quicker recovery due to the confidence of the American people.

Will this become the norm? Will we eventually take for granted having a government which communicates directly and immediately? Will we learn to demand the accountability and transparency that Recovery.gov is introducing? Will this change how our congress spends money?

Web 2.0 and the President of the United States

Like him or hate him, you have to be at least mildly curious about the President posting on YouTube and other web 2.0 mediums. The idea that a message from the most powerful office on the planet could "go viral" and be seen by millions within minutes of recording, without the expense of live TV, is going to be huge. The President can post a video in forums that allow commenting, and generate discussion among billions of people about his video.

If you trust Obama, then you can be excited that he will be able to get his message out and counter any criticism far more effectively. If you do not trust Obama, then there may be something to fear. Someone who is good at manipulating the masses now has a method of doing so on a grander scale and perhaps more thoroughly.

The ultimate question: will this new method of communication allow a manipulator to dupe the masses, or will this lead to greater transparency and make it harder to "spin" the message? What would ahve happened if either of the Bushes used this medium, or Reagan, or Clinton? Consider how Iran/Contra, Monica Lewinsky, The Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence could have been managed with access to Web 2.0!

Looking forward to your thoughts!